“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Well I was responding to the post that saw fit to "clarify" this issue by pointing out how the Federal Republic should best deal with Haverbeck which had nothing to do with what you or I had posted and was basically a non sequitur. In addition to, at this point, going without saying.

Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

I've said it before, she must like the food.

She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

I've said it before, she must like the food.

She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

.............But Groning, who literally has one foot in the casket and has behaved admirably in the 70 years since the end of the war, did not deserve jail time. I think health and conduct should be taken into account. Haversback is more dangerous due to her being a latter-day Goebbles, and maybe is in better health.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

I've said it before, she must like the food.

She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

.............But Groning, who literally has one foot in the casket and has behaved admirably in the 70 years since the end of the war, did not deserve jail time. I think health and conduct should be taken into account. Haversback is more dangerous due to her being a latter-day Goebbles, and maybe is in better health.

I've always opposed the trial and prosecution of Oskar Groening. It never made any sense to me.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I've always opposed the trial and prosecution of Oskar Groening. It never made any sense to me.

It has no bearing on Haverbeck's case. I do get the theory, and I find it difficult to resolve clearly, it's a question of subtle line drawing I think - also Gröning's life-history makes his case different from most others.

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I've always opposed the trial and prosecution of Oskar Groening. It never made any sense to me.

It has no bearing on Haverbeck's case. I do get the theory, and I find it difficult to resolve clearly, it's a question of subtle line drawing I think - also Gröning's life-history makes his case different from most others.

This is true, we should talk about that in the thread devoted to it. But, I've gotten to the point these prosecutions of old guards and radio operators simply no longer makes sense.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

I've said it before, she must like the food.

She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

That's a point of view of course, but then it would imply submission to any law at any time.
Sometimes the best way to denounce a unlawful law is to break it and to provoke the debate.

Ok, at that point, my intention is not to turn this " Nazi Oma" into some freedom fighter, let's it be clear.

But in a purely theoretical perspective, breaking a law that is clearly wrong - in the sense "contrary" to the fundamental values on which a democratic state should stand - then one must keep in mind that many "unlawful laws" had been fought against by simply not complying with it.

Let's imagine that Trump turns the USA into a fascist State, and declares that "all demonstrations will be considered "against the law", would you all stay home? Or even consider that every person who would go on the street to oppose Trump would somehow deserve their punishment "because they knew they would break the law?"

There is another fundamental contradiction regarding this statement: If "breaking the laws" implies being punished no matter what, how can one judge people for "not having broken them"? If a State makes a crime of "helping Jews" or of "not turning them to the authority?", a it is breaking the law NOT to obey orders, etc?
That was a line of defense of Nazi criminals. This is why new concept like "crimes against Humanity" HAD to be invented and put into force, because "law" should not be the ultimate reference.
Recently in France, a well intentioned citizen got sentenced for having helped "immigrants" in needs. He faces jail time!
A law that considers helping a fellow human being in need as a crime, well it is not a law that i am willing to recognize!

I was born in Germany, from a German mother, and there is a lot of things i am proud regarding Germany.
But this psychotic reaction to its past is not one of them. That doctors, betraying their oath, can conclude that being jailed pose no risk to the health of a 94 years old, is absurd, insane, and should even be considered as "breaking basic human laws"!
To give a 1 year sentence to a 87 years old for "denial" is - the same way - contrary to the basic principles of democracy and democratic value.

As regarding the "age factor" that should be ignored, well it all depends on the crime we are talking about.
It is known that in the USA, jail is considered in a very different perspective.
Some European countries consider that Jail is the solution of last resort, when the criminal present a risk for society or when it is consider that the criminal needs it "in order to rehabilitate himself".
With this old cow, there are just no reason for her to be sent to Jail. That will clearly not change her mind, at her age, quite the contrary, and there is no way to be convinced that she represents any threat for the society.

As i said, even in South America, which has probably one of the worst penitential system in the western world, old people are usually not sent in those rat holes unless they committed a serious crime (blood crimes).
One of the reason for this attitude, is that outside a clear sentence to "life in prison", dying in prison is considered as a disproportionate punishment, especially if the "law violation" has no real consequences, therefore there are concept like "casa por carcel" or even "pais por carcel" (House arrest or travel ban).

Sentencing a 87 years old person, especially for such crimes, clearly poses the risk that the "lady" dies in prison, a sentence that - in some perspectives - should be reserved to murderers.
This is why, Stat, Age does matter.

Regarding the nature of the crime:
Again, if one agrees that "stupidity and ignorance" should not be considered as a "serious crime", if one agrees with the fundamental value of "freedom of speech and thought", including the "right to be stupid", then even an Nazi Oma should not be considered as breaking the law for being an old stupid nazi goat. Some countries especially in Europe, but it is gaining attraction, have chosen to make some exception to this fundamental right, and to turn the expression of "stupid ideas" into "serious crimes", therefore there is no way not to consider those laws as "thought crimes" or "political crimes".
And it is my conviction that such crimes have no place in any democratic society.

Allowing exceptions only opens the way to additional "exceptions", there will always be some who would agree with those "new" exceptions. There are always "good reasons" to justify anything.

There are other way to punish her for her stupidity without giving her - in her sick mind - to become a martyr of the Nazi cause.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Well I was responding to the post that saw fit to "clarify" this issue by pointing out how the Federal Republic should best deal with Haverbeck which had nothing to do with what you or I had posted and was basically a non sequitur. In addition to, at this point, going without saying.

PLease define "non sequetur" in this context.
Maybe if you refer to deep post like "she must like the food", or "she keeps trying to be toss in jail" or whatever humorous posts that is up there, well mine might be one.
But then i see no reason to laugh or make fun about.

I did not give advice to the Federal Republic, i just said it is plain wrong in how it is acting right now!
The main problem with the German Justice system is that it tries to white wash its past by almost becoming what it was. It just try to clean its past by hamming on "stupid neo-Nazis" who had never had any credibility in germany whenever it can, after it failed to hammer real criminal ones when it could!
Now you might want to consider this as "irrelevant".

The only "non sequetur" i have read in this thread is this one:

Yeah being gassed because you're deemed incurable ill or getting shot for being Jewish or hacked to death for being a Serb - much better.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

I've said it before, she must like the food.

She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

That's a point of view of course, but then it would imply submission to any law at any time.
Sometimes the best way to denounce a unlawful law is to break it and to provoke the debate.

Ok, at that point, my intention is not to turn this " Nazi Oma" into some freedom fighter, let's it be clear.

But in a purely theoretical perspective, breaking a law that is clearly wrong - in the sense "contrary" to the fundamental values on which a democratic state should stand - then one must keep in mind that many "unlawful laws" had been fought against by simply not complying with it.

Let's imagine that Trump turns the USA into a fascist State, and declares that "all demonstrations will be considered "against the law", would you all stay home? Or even consider that every person who would go on the street to oppose Trump would somehow deserve their punishment "because they knew they would break the law?"

There is another fundamental contradiction regarding this statement: If "breaking the laws" implies being punished no matter what, how can one judge people for "not having broken them"? If a State makes a crime of "helping Jews" or of "not turning them to the authority?", a it is breaking the law NOT to obey orders, etc?
That was a line of defense of Nazi criminals. This is why new concept like "crimes against Humanity" HAD to be invented and put into force, because "law" should not be the ultimate reference.
Recently in France, a well intentioned citizen got sentenced for having helped "immigrants" in needs. He faces jail time!
A law that considers helping a fellow human being in need as a crime, well it is not a law that i am willing to recognize!

I was born in Germany, from a German mother, and there is a lot of things i am proud regarding Germany.
But this psychotic reaction to its past is not one of them. That doctors, betraying their oath, can conclude that being jailed pose no risk to the health of a 94 years old, is absurd, insane, and should even be considered as "breaking basic human laws"!
To give a 1 year sentence to a 87 years old for "denial" is - the same way - contrary to the basic principles of democracy and democratic value.

As regarding the "age factor" that should be ignored, well it all depends on the crime we are talking about.
It is known that in the USA, jail is considered in a very different perspective.
Some European countries consider that Jail is the solution of last resort, when the criminal present a risk for society or when it is consider that the criminal needs it "in order to rehabilitate himself".
With this old cow, there are just no reason for her to be sent to Jail. That will clearly not change her mind, at her age, quite the contrary, and there is no way to be convinced that she represents any threat for the society.

As i said, even in South America, which has probably one of the worst penitential system in the western world, old people are usually not sent in those rat holes unless they committed a serious crime (blood crimes).
One of the reason for this attitude, is that outside a clear sentence to "life in prison", dying in prison is considered as a disproportionate punishment, especially if the "law violation" has no real consequences, therefore there are concept like "casa por carcel" or even "pais por carcel" (House arrest or travel ban).

Sentencing a 87 years old person, especially for such crimes, clearly poses the risk that the "lady" dies in prison, ra sentence that - in some perspectives - should be reserved to murderers.
This is why, Stat, Age does matter.

Regarding the nature of the crime:
Again, if one agrees that "stupidity and ignorance" should not be considered as a "serious crime", if one agrees with the fundamental value of "freedom of speech and thought", including the "right to be stupid", then even an Nazi Oma should not be considered as breaking the law for being an old stupid nazi goat. Some countries especially in Europe, but it is gaining attraction, have chosen to make some exception to this fundamental right, and to turn the expression of "stupid ideas" into "serious crimes", therefore there is no way not to consider those laws as "thought crimes" or "political crimes".
And it is my conviction that such crimes have no place in any democratic society.

Allowing exceptions only opens the way to additional "exceptions", there will always be some who would agree with those "new" exceptions. There are always "good reasons" to justify anything.

There are other way to punish her for her stupidity without giving her - in her sick mind - to become a martyr of the Nazi cause.

I don't think this is unreasonable. Her age is certainly reason enough to examine her for mental fitness to understand the charge(s) against her, let alone to follow proceedings at trial itself.

Balsamo wrote:I was born in Germany, from a German mother, and there is a lot of things i am proud regarding Germany.
But this psychotic reaction to its past is not one of them. That doctors, betraying their oath, can conclude that being jailed pose no risk to the health of a 94 years old, is absurd, insane, and should even be considered as "breaking basic human laws"!
To give a 1 year sentence to a 87 years old for "denial" is - the same way - contrary to the basic principles of democracy and democratic value.

Germany has a lot to be proud of - it has gone from being the nightmare of the world to being arguably the last great hope for the west. I would not degenerate the Bundesrepublik in any way as it has shown itself to be, IMO, the most successful and enduring state in the period from the second half of the 20th century up to now. It is not perfect - Suvorovisim was a prevalent way of thinking in at least a good part of the establishment for a long time and to an extent today - but in totality, Germans have a great deal to be proud of and I will say without hesitation that the world has much to learn from the BRD.

I share your anxiety at the terrible treatment of Mr. Groning and I hope that his lawyer is successful on appeal. he should, IMO, arrange a medical exam and inform his client to pretend to have Dementia, if necessary.

However, Haverbeck deserves her sentence - she acts as a propagandist for Nazi Germany and is arguably guilty of sedition. I doubt one would not have to look far to find evidence of her denigrating the BRD and calling for its overthrow, as Zundel did explicitly. She is an extremely dangerous individual and imprisoning her reduces the harm she can do to the country.

Last edited by Jeff_36 on Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As for the last part, i do think that the BRD is much stronger than you seem to think and that it is quite immune to the kind of Nazi Oma or more seriously Zundel. The latest would not be famous as he was hadn't be those public trials.
Is Nazi Oma a thread for the German State and Society? Well this is what should be proven in court, in a substantial way. It is far from obvious to me, frankly. If there would be concrete evidence that she is, and that what she did or say did hurt the society, then well she would deserve her sentence, the sentence would be fixed according the damage done.

But that is not really the issue for me.

The worry is more related to the old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I have shared my feelings about Groening, and i agree with you. But the charges at least were quite concrete. He was part of the Auschwitz killing machine. Had he been an active part of it, his age would not have mattered.
But given the fact that he was not really an active part of the killing process, and more importantly that he was one of those who promoted the truth while he could just have shut the {!#%@} up and kept a low profile, we clearly have a wrong target.

But more fundamentally, it is how our society becomes. How it conceives punishment (justice) and the purpose of this punishment.
And how the public, the citizens look at the process.

I admit that the sentence - actually, both - that is Nazi Oma and Groening - shocked me, but for different reasons. The point in common was that Germany, long known for a very indulgent way to render justice (in general, not the outrageous way it did it with its Nazi criminals), has become a radicalized Justice when it comes to such things like denial. Up to a pòint that even ages is not taken into consideration.
I mean the issues here would be what is Justice for and what should be the objectives of punishment.

And the more i think about it, the less i see any logic or rational in Nazi Oma being sent to Jail (for a year or 2).

It is a bit like brutal and corporal punishment against children. Well, we all know that sometimes your kid can do something really bad, to such a degree that you loose your temper and just hit him. It can be argued that he kind of deserved what he got. It is nevertheless, most of the time, an emotional reaction, a gesture motivated by anger...not always rational. Most of the time, it is a sign or the expression of the parent's weakness when confronted with a difficult situation. Most of the time, the parent is not proud of what he did but will do his best to justify his action.
But then, whatever one might think about punishing physically a kid that had made something really wrong, if there is no pedagogy, no lessons learned - except the fear of the kick - then the act of "kicking a child for his bad behavior" became a pure senseless emotional act. The child is probably left with trauma but has not learned anything but that his mum and/or dad are capable to hurt him. Great success.

And this is exactly what the sentence of this stupid Nazi Oma is all about. We throw her in Jail with no real perspective, logic or purpose, there is no logic in it, and nothing will be learned from it, except that the Justice of Germany can hurt you if it does not like what you say. This is not what will convince any " soon to become Nazi" that they are wrong, quite the contrary.
Hence, this kind of sentence is just like an angry parent kicking a bad child because it has no other idea how to react. Brutal and emotional, but in the end, senseless, and even counter-productive.

My second reaction was an malaise when reading the posts, here.
There are just no ground to make jokes or laugh about such things. 365 or 830 days in jail is not a joke. It is not funny.
Well, it could be if everyone outside the prisons were truly innocent and everyone in jail were 100% guilty. But that is just not the case.
It may be alright in this case, because the old Oma is a {!#%@} Nazi, right? "Hahaha...Hope she'll get a copy of Mein Kampf in the prison library...hahahaha...". But then, who could be next? what kind of deviant idea could be considered undesirable next? What kind of "thoughts" and "convictions" could also be treated the same way?

Unfortunately, the world's prison are full with people who are guilty of having "wrong ideas" - and in some case even them can be considered as stupid - what logical and philosophical ground should we use to determine what case is laughable and what case is tragic?
What kind of legal argument could we oppose to such abuses, if one succumbs to the idea that it all depend of "what you said or thought?"

Sometimes we should remember, Martin Niemöller's poem, it would not hurt.

Jeff_36 wrote:. . . Haversback deserves her sentence - she acts as a propagandist for Nazi Germany and is arguably guilty of sedition. I doubt one would not have to look far to find evidence of her denigrating the BRD and calling for its overthrow, as Zundel did explicitly. She is an extremely dangerous individual and imprisoning her reduces the harm she can do to the country.

One could, of course, argue that Haverbeck (her actual name) "deserves her sentence" because she broke a law.

But that's not what you're arguing: you are saying that she deserves her sentence because she speaks in favor of Nazism ("propaganda" is part of speech by another name) and is guilty of sedition (inciting rebellion against government - in the US, since Yates v US reversed Dennis v US in a case involving the Smith Act convictions of Communist party leaders, illegal sedition has to do with "overt acts," or "any effort to instigate action to that end," not rebellious speech - back to this in a moment).

You even broaden the grounds for permissible conviction and imprisonment of Haverbeck to include the incredibly broad and almost indefinable action of "denigrating the BRD."

So, to US context and my question: In the US the First Amendment permits a very wide range of speech. As Yates held,

We are thus faced with the question whether the Smith Act prohibits advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow as an abstract principle, divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end, so long as such advocacy or teaching is engaged in with evil intent. We hold that it does not. . . . In failing to distinguish between advocacy of forcible overthrow as an abstract doctrine and advocacy of action to that end, the District Court appears to have been led astray by the holding in Dennis that advocacy of violent action to be taken at some future time was enough.

The Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v Ohio, over a decade after Yates, followed this basic line of reasoning in overturning Ohio's criminal syndicalism law in a case involving the KKK. It separated "mere advocacy" from "imminent lawless action" and incitement of such action:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. . . . Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime [395 U.S. 444, 449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.3

Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action.4 Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

Implicitly, your argument is critical of the First Amendment as it has been interpreted and applied in the US. How would you revise US constitutional law, given your views on Haverbeck's case?

(For my part, I am a very strong supporter of the reasoning in Yates and Brandenburg and for a wide scope of free exercise of speech, even for the most repugnant - to me or to others - political viewpoints. I realize that other liberal democracies differ to the US in this; I happen to think that they have it wrong. OTOH it is entirely appropriate to mock chimp reasoning and posturing about this case. No apologies for that.)

Jeffk 1970 wrote:She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

I didn't mean that! All I meant was that simply being old doesn't exempt a person from prosecution and, if the person's condition warrants it, punishment in prison. As with Arpaio. But OTOH you have a point: those who (e.g., in the 'sixties opposing the war or advocating for civil rights) undertook civil disobedience well understood the consequences.

Still, one of their goals was to change certain laws, which, without buying what Haverbeck, CODOH, et al try selling, is what I'd advocate.

I agree with Roberto Muehlenkamp and the folks at HC on this: German legislator petition: "We are also of the opinion that, however disgusting and offensive to certain people the utterance of such propagandistic untruths may be, the democratic constitutional state should rely on prevailing over them on the free marketplace of ideas. The means to keep the discontented in our society from being taken in by extremist hate speech should be education and information, not criminal prosecution."

Jeffk 1970 wrote:She is violating German law. However much I disagree with the premise or interpretation you are right, violating the law regardless of one's age needs to be punished. If this lesson needs to be driven home with an additional sentence then so be it.

I didn't mean that! All I meant was that simply being old doesn't exempt a person from prosecution and, if the person's condition warrants it, punishment in prison. As with Arpaio. But OTOH you have a point: those who (e.g., in the 'sixties opposing the war or advocating for civil rights) undertook civil disobedience well understood the consequences.

Still, one of their goals was to change certain laws, which, without buying what Haverbeck, CODOH, et al try selling, is what I'd advocate.

I agree with Roberto Muehlenkamp and the folks at HC on this: German legislator petition: "We are also of the opinion that, however disgusting and offensive to certain people the utterance of such propagandistic untruths may be, the democratic constitutional state should rely on prevailing over them on the free marketplace of ideas. The means to keep the discontented in our society from being taken in by extremist hate speech should be education and information, not criminal prosecution."

This seems to be wandering into new areas....

OK, in a nutshell, this is what I think:

I disagree with HD laws. I agree that the way to combat hate speech is with education, not laws that criminalize the speech. However much I hate the "message" the person that expresses such speech has the right to do so in a peaceful way as long as they don't incite or commit violence. Even the Charlottesville marchers had this right, had they kept it peaceful I would have no problem with them expressing their views. The same with the counterprotesters, they had the right to do this.

However, I also recognize that sovereign nations like Germany and France have the right to pass laws that they feel are in their best interests. I also recognize that free speech traditions are different in Europe than in the United States or Britain. I think that if French, German, etc. citizens dislike such laws than they need to work to change or abolish such laws through whatever process each country uses to enact, abolish or change such laws.

Any German, French, etc. citizen who violates such laws are subject to whatever penalty that law dictates. That's the breaks. Don't want to do the time? Work within the legal system to change things and in the meantime don't violate the law. As far as Nazi granny, if the court determines she is unfit to serve her sentence I am fine with that. But, age doesn't exempt someone from penalty. Regardless of age, if I continue to drive with a suspended license and I get caught then I'm liable for whatever penalty the law says.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Otoh I don't agree on the age factor. (mentioned upthhtead) If Haverbeck had cut someone's throat a week ago, then she'd deserve punishment. The problem is that what she did is expressing abhorrent views and propagandizing for them, which shouldn't be punishable whether she's 21 or 91, IMO.

First, i want to apologize. It seems i might misinterpret some of the positions. I was probably influenced by the "humorous tone" of the first page of this thread.

In order to get serious, well the topic of the influence of age in Justice is a good one.
Just this morning, i read an article of a couple of retired british couple - i guess he was 70 and she 69 - who went crazy in a hotel. Completely drunk, they got into a fury and start breaking things, threatening clients and personels, kicking some of them, threatening to kill them.
They got a few thousands $ fines.

Whatever we do approve it or not, actually age does matter in most European Justice system.
It is well known that crimes committed before the age 18 are treated by different jurisdictions, " Youth Courts". While, generally, as shown in the case of the English drunk couple, old age is also taken into consideration, when it comes to sentencing.
While the first exception based on age is automatic (Under 18, you are considered less responsible than over 18), the second exception has made its way into judicial custom.

Sorry, my English is not up to the complexity of the subject. But let's give it a try anyway.
The idea behind taking age into consideration is more or less the same: weakness. A youth is still considered as not fully matured, fully aware of the wider perspective of his actions, so responsibility is tempered. In the same way, the older you get, the less you are in full control, physically, psychologically and intellectually.
In both cases, the Court usually ask outsider "expertises" to determine the current state of the accused. So age does matter.

But more related to the topic is the influence of Age on the "sentences".
A good example is the case of MAURICE PAPON. There is no debate of the nature of the crimes, or his guilt. But the lawyers of course advanced the age of the accused in order to avoid Jail time. He was 88. The Court dismissed the argument, but conceded that up to a certain point, condition of detention - considering the age of the accused - coupled with the deterioration of the accused health could lead to a "infringement of human dignity".
Therefore, a prolonged detention of a very old person made its way into the article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The base for this idea being that even convicted have "the right to dignity and the respect of his rights".
HEALTH being the factor. The idea being that any sentence should not affect you health.
Papon was sentenced in 1998 and released for health issue in 2002

Now of course, we are not talking about "blood crimes" here. Had Nazi Oma cut the throat of someone, she would have to face her sentence, and i doubt the judge would have shown clemency. Nevertheless, even in this case - according to the "humanist" approach of European Justice (EU) as long as the sentence does not affect her health.

Now up to 2016, the custom of treating Youth and Elderly differently in Court, especially when it comes to minor crime, following the humanist approach of Justice wanted by the EU was respected.
I therefore see those latest Auschwitz trials as a first breach of this approach. But then here, we cannot consider the charges as "minor crimes", but the sentence given to this old lunatic is a clear warning signs that the humanist approach of the European Justice could come to an end.
Making exception if this humanist approach for someone who wrote a couple of stupid letters, and gave an interview to a stupid young journalist, well it is scary for the future.
And given my personal values and stances on those things, i cannot welcome that.

Balsamo wrote:
In order to get serious, well the topic of the influence of age in Justice is a good one.
Just this morning, i read an article of a couple of retired british couple - i guess he was 70 and she 69 - who went crazy in a hotel. Completely drunk, they got into a fury and start breaking things, threatening clients and personels, kicking some of them, threatening to kill them.
They got a few thousands $ fines.

Whatever we do approve it or not, actually age does matter in most European Justice system.
It is well known that crimes committed before the age 18 are treated by different jurisdictions, " Youth Courts". While, generally, as shown in the case of the English drunk couple, old age is also taken into consideration, when it comes to sentencing.
While the first exception based on age is automatic (Under 18, you are considered less responsible than over 18), the second exception has made its way into judicial custom.

Sorry, my English is not up to the complexity of the subject. But let's give it a try anyway.
The idea behind taking age into consideration is more or less the same: weakness. A youth is still considered as not fully matured, fully aware of the wider perspective of his actions, so responsibility is tempered. In the same way, the older you get, the less you are in full control, physically, psychologically and intellectually.
In both cases, the Court usually ask outsider "expertises" to determine the current state of the accused. So age does matter.

But more related to the topic is the influence of Age on the "sentences".
A good example is the case of MAURICE PAPON. There is no debate of the nature of the crimes, or his guilt. But the lawyers of course advanced the age of the accused in order to avoid Jail time. He was 88. The Court dismissed the argument, but conceded that up to a certain point, condition of detention - considering the age of the accused - coupled with the deterioration of the accused health could lead to a "infringement of human dignity".
Therefore, a prolonged detention of a very old person made its way into the article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The base for this idea being that even convicted have "the right to dignity and the respect of his rights".
HEALTH being the factor. The idea being that any sentence should not affect you health.
Papon was sentenced in 1998 and released for health issue in 2002

Now of course, we are not talking about "blood crimes" here. Had Nazi Oma cut the throat of someone, she would have to face her sentence, and i doubt the judge would have shown clemency. Nevertheless, even in this case - according to the "humanist" approach of European Justice (EU) as long as the sentence does not affect her health.

Now up to 2016, the custom of treating Youth and Elderly differently in Court, especially when it comes to minor crime, following the humanist approach of Justice wanted by the EU was respected.
I therefore see those latest Auschwitz trials as a first breach of this approach. But then here, we cannot consider the charges as "minor crimes", but the sentence given to this old lunatic is a clear warning signs that the humanist approach of the European Justice could come to an end.
Making exception if this humanist approach for someone who wrote a couple of stupid letters, and gave an interview to a stupid young journalist, well it is scary for the future.
And given my personal values and stances on those things, i cannot welcome that.

I don't object to her age being used to showing her leniency. In fact, I agree with what Balmoral said above, it would do no harm in assessing not only her physical capacity to withstand imprisonment but her mental capacity as well. Even in your examples above age is considered but punishment is still exacted. Fine her and give her a suspended sentence or place her under house arrest of some sort.

I don't really think we disagree about the absurdity of punishing someone for having a dissenting view, Balsamo. It goes against my core belief of the need for free speech. I summarized my views on this above.

But, I also say that Germany or France or Belgium have the right to enact the laws they see fit. If the citizens of those countries object to what their legislatures do then they need to make their wishes known and work to change those laws. Me griping about it does not do a lot of good, those countries could care less what I think, I'm not a citizen of those countries.

I once had a denier who told me that I should be ashamed and be more proactive in getting those laws changed, go out and protest in front of their embassies. I told him that I simply wasn't interested but that I fully supported his right to do so.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Well, I'll say for the 44th time across a broad spectrum of internet sites, no I don't agree with legislation by any state that inhibits idiots from doing what they will as to speech, protests, personal writings... violence from anyone, for any reason, crosses the line of acceptability.

Seriously starting to lose track, they need to stick this woman in a hospital for observation, not keep sending her off to prison.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Seriously starting to lose track, they need to stick this woman in a hospital for observation, not keep sending her off to prison.

Guillotine sounds about right to me.

She’d appreciate that, it was a German method of execution.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Seriously starting to lose track, they need to stick this woman in a hospital for observation, not keep sending her off to prison.

Guillotine sounds about right to me.

She’d appreciate that, it was a German method of execution.

Well, originally, it was a French invention that was adopted during (even shortly before) the Revolution. It was presented as innovative and humane way to execute people - without pain - hence the famous "all you'll feel is a slight breeze on your neck"). It spread across Europe, i guess following Napoleon epic conquest.
It staid the mean to execute death penalties in France up to 1981, when death penalty was abolished by socialist president Francois Mitterand.

Le last person who was executed through guillotine was a Tunisian,Hamida Djandoubi, it was in september 1977.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Seriously starting to lose track, they need to stick this woman in a hospital for observation, not keep sending her off to prison.

Guillotine sounds about right to me.

She’d appreciate that, it was a German method of execution.

Well, originally, it was a French invention that was adopted during (even shortly before) the Revolution. It was presented as innovative and humane way to execute people - without pain - hence the famous "all you'll feel is a slight breeze on your neck"). It spread across Europe, i guess following Napoleon epic conquest.
It staid the mean to execute death penalties in France up to 1981, when death penalty was abolished by socialist president Francois Mitterand.

Le last person who was executed through guillotine was a Tunisian,Hamida Djandoubi, it was in september 1977.

Indeed... and a natural modernisation on using a headsman.... which, iirc, the headsman for Anne Boleyn was specially imported to the Tower from Calais. Or maybe I just got that from stories.

Anyway, back to the 20th century: Seems to me that Scoll and Grandma are pretty much guilty of the same thing... Grandma got a few more chances than Scholl, but now it's time to pay the piper for crimes against the state.

This is the truth. It was a sign of mercy by king Henry as he did not want the execution to be messy. The hangman of Calais was known for his dexterity with the sword, weapon he used, which also allow Ann to knee straight.
A couple of years later, Mary queen of Scots will not be so lucky.

Actually, in those days, to be beheaded was a privilege normally reserved to the Aristocracy. A common executed for treason would have been hanged and quartered, and in the case of a woman, probably burned.

It should also be known, that the sword or the axe was still used in Germany before and during the Nazis,and that only some Lander had chosen the guillotine. I don't know if the use of guillotine also became a standard thanks to Hitler's well known humanist nature.
It is also good at this point to remind that the Nazi courts sentenced and executed almost 40.000 people. Quite a record.

Great Britain gave up beheading people in the 18th century. Death by hanging became the standard, and was the sentence for about 200 different crimes, including stealing food or pick pocket.
The number of crimes implying death penalties will be reduced by half during the XIX century.

Meanwhile, in France, they still had a lot of "goodies" which i won't described here...At the very beginning of the Revolution, Louis XVI decided that the guillotine would become the sole method of execution, and the gesture was seen as highly humanist. Of course, he did not know that he would be among the first to actually "test" the machine.

This is the truth. It was a sign of mercy by king Henry as he did not want the execution to be messy. The hangman of Calais was known for his dexterity with the sword, weapon he used, which also allow Ann to knee straight.
A couple of years later, Mary queen of Scots will not be so lucky.

Actually, in those days, to be beheaded was a privilege normally reserved to the Aristocracy. A common executed for treason would have been hanged and quartered, and in the case of a woman, probably burned.

It should also be known, that the sword or the axe was still used in Germany before and during the Nazis,and that only some Lander had chosen the guillotine. I don't know if the use of guillotine also became a standard thanks to Hitler's well known humanist nature.
It is also good at this point to remind that the Nazi courts sentenced and executed almost 40.000 people. Quite a record.

Great Britain gave up beheading people in the 18th century. Death by hanging became the standard, and was the sentence for about 200 different crimes, including stealing food or pick pocket.
The number of crimes implying death penalties will be reduced by half during the XIX century.

Meanwhile, in France, they still had a lot of "goodies" which i won't described here...At the very beginning of the Revolution, Louis XVI decided that the guillotine would become the sole method of execution, and the gesture was seen as highly humanist. Of course, he did not know that he would be among the first to actually "test" the machine.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

Haverbeck and her late husband were members of the Nazi party during the Second World War.

The pair founded a now-banned education centre and she has written for a right-wing magazine where she has argued that the Holocaust never happened.

She sounds nice.

IKR? She probably bakes little Hitler cookies.

“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942